Cyclist behaviour on country roads; reg numbers for sports bikes? Mod Note post #18

07Lapierre

Be careful what you wish for....how much will these plates cost? Will it be an annual fixed charge or will it depend on certain criteria?

E.g. I ride a bike worth about €800. Will my plate cost the same as a school kid riding a €250 BMX to school?

Will school kids bikes have to be registered? ( if they use the road then yes right?)

What Format will these plates take? Square or triangle? They'll have to be pretty small plates if there attached under the saddle. If a cyclist runs a red light, Will people be able to read such a small plate?

porsche959

ThisRegard wrote: »

Sigh, don't know where to even start with that. Surely your bizarre theory implies that such people would already have bikes, and are hardly the sportive riding types in the secret video.

Previously they could only afford crap bikes. With the tax write offs they can afford decent bike which they use to terrorise car drivers and pedestrians.

Tenzor07

Registration plates for bicycles = thinly veiled "cyclists should not be allowed on the road"

In the mean time, what would Adolf say?

quozl

If the op was a safe distance from the cyclists then how would a cyclist grab onto his door.

Unless a bicycle out-braked your car - which is physically impossible.

Where's this video of your fantasy episode?

ThisRegard

porsche959 wrote: »

Previously they could only afford crap bikes. With the tax write offs they can afford decent bike which they use to terrorise car drivers and pedestrians.

So they were cyclists, and now they're still cyclists.

rizzodun

Inquitus wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

With the RSA advert regarding cyclists just before the rick roll this post has so much win

Raam

ThisRegard wrote: »

So they were cyclists, and now they're still cyclists.

But now they are terrifying, or terrorists, or terrific or something.

Lumen

KnotABother wrote: »

It's in no way unworkable. I have a car and a licence and my car is registered and insured.

You have neither thought it through nor looked for any of the previous threads where people have thought it through.

That's just wilful ignorance.

Beasty

Days 298 wrote: »

Well would you rather car drivers squeeze past toeing a white line or give clearance if they see a clear road ahead?

They should wait until it is safe and legal to do so - as I've already mentioned the minimim recommended safe passing distance is 1.5m. If you can't provide that much clearance without going over a continuous white line, it's probably not safe to overtake legally

seamus

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Eh no as a cyclist you can't obstruct vehicles trying to pass.

You're right. If a vehicle is in the middle of an overtaking manouver, it would be very illegal and stupid for a cyclist to change position to block them.

But a cyclist does not have to move over to allow following to traffic to overtake, unless it is safe to do so. As you well know with 15,000km under your belt yearly, many L-roads in this country barely have enough room for two cars to pass eachother without rubbing the hedge on either side, so providing a safe place for a car to overtake requires care and planning. If you just move over as soon as you hear a car, chances are the idiot will just attempt an overtake without properly evaluating the conditions.

Thus it is not only legal, but best practice for the cyclist to maintain a position which prevents vehicles from overtaking until they reach a place in the road where the cyclist feels it would be safe for following traffic to overtake.

cython

Days 298 wrote: »

Well would you rather car drivers squeeze past toeing a white line or give clearance if they see a clear road ahead?

Sorry, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that post. Obviously drivers should allow sufficient clearance, but the question above has no bearing on the distinction between whether a continuous white line means no overtaking, or do not cross. An obvious extension of the actual "do not cross" meaning is that there should be no overtaking unless it can be achieved safely without crossing the line.

nc19

mathepac wrote: »

Is there a case for making sports bikes or bikes generally as identifiable as other road vehicles?

Yes

rizzodun

Perhaps this post on driving school Ireland forum might help, answered by a qualified instructor.

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1734

Lumen

cython wrote: »

An obvious extension of the actual "do not cross" meaning is that there should be no overtaking unless it can be achieved safely without crossing the line.

ISTR there is an exemption for crossing a solid white line to pass "obstructions", but I'm too lazy to look it up nor worry about whether a moving cyclist represents an obstruction.

I got pulled (and fined) many many years ago for overtaking a slow car over a solid white line. Unfortunately there was another car coming the other way and that car had POLICE written on the side. I got a right bollocking and haven't done it again since :pac:

rizzodun

nc19 wrote: »

Yes

So by that I cannot bring my mountain bike on the road?

furiousox

mathepac wrote: »

"...I came across two lycra-clad idiots cycling two-abreast.
...I now had eejit No 1 attached to my car uninvited and eejit No 2 wobbling dangerously ahead of me observing the conversation between me and eejit No 1."

"...Thanks for apologising for your post up front, it took some of the idiotic sting out of the content."

"....I posted here as the two concerned were togged out as tour-de-tipperary-nord wannabees"

Well, at least you came here with an open mind....

Diarmuid

Did I miss the OP linking to the video?

seamus

rizzodun wrote: »

Perhaps this post on driving school Ireland forum might help, answered by a qualified instructor.

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1734

Haha, not really. First he says:

Way I see it, a cyclist is an obstruction and the rule book says you may cross the line to pass the obstruction.

But later he says:

My replies were for general driving.

If it happens in the test then hold back for a little longer. Wait if there are junctions close ahead. If still there and looks like you will be stuck behind for some time then and only then overtake. And sometimes if you are lucky and got a nice tester he may tell you to overtake.

Remember if you can not in total safety overtake, sit back and relax.

So basically, "I think it's OK to overtake, but that's just my opinion, I wouldn't risk it in the test because it's technically breaking the law"
His advise in the thread to be fair is spot on though.

Raam

Diarmuid wrote: »

Did I miss the OP linking to the video?

Yep, sorry. It has been deleted. You missed it.

mathepac

seamus wrote: »

You do not have the authority to issue directions or demands to other road users, so the first mistake was yours and likely only served to create aggravation. In any honest appraisal of the incident, "You started it"....

That's an unfortunately typical school-yard response which should have no place in a discussion about a road-safety matter . As I say later in the thread I accept responsibility for my actions but others need to accept responsibilty for their actions or reactions.

If I flash my lights and gesture to another driver that I am ceding right of way and that it's OK to move out from the kerb or from a junction for example, would you see that in another light or would I still be issuing directions or making demands of other road users? I know what the ROTR has to say in the matter but I've seen Garda drivers & motor-cyclists respond positively to the invitation.

seamus wrote: »

... Why he did that, I don't know, he's clearly an idiot. By the same logic as above, he does not have the authority to issue such directions, and most certainly you should have not responded since overtaking another vehicle on the left is not permitted in the given circumstances.

The correct response would be to continue to hang back and wait for a safe place to overtake. Or failing that, ring the Gardai and make a report. They're not going fast enough to disappear, so they can be stopped by a local Garda car. .

I made it clear above that when he let go of my door-frame and drifted off the back of me (he stopped peddling I assume) I made no changes in speed or direction as I was afraid of the consequences for him if I did. Once I saw him in my rear-view mirror, I overtook the Hogworts owl safely, without showering them with the muck off the road or choking them with diesel smoke, that was the level of my concern for their safety

seamus wrote: »

... Cyclists don't want you sitting behind them any more than you want to be there, it's irritating. If they are not riding single file to give you room to overtake, it's usually because there is no room to overtake safely, even in single file. This most often occurs on winding L-roads ...

I see, so in your opinion it's perfectly OK for them to make road safety decisions for me by blocking the road and preventing me overtaking, but it is not OK for me to signal my intentions to them and how to make it safer for all of us. Motorists, experienced defensive drivers of long-standing know that if some is determined to over take, your responsibility is limited to staying as close to the nearside as you can so the maneuver can be executed as safely as possible. Do not do the other guy's thinking for him. Dumb & Dumber seemed to think they were Jon & Poncherello from the old TV series.

seamus wrote: »

...
Registration plates on bicycles has been a costly and pointless exercise anywhere it's been done.

At least I've learned that much from the thread but nothing else unfortunately other than some people's prejudices and refusal to engage in worthwhile discourse..

nc19

Plastik wrote: »

Because they don't have to. Does a car you come across travelling slower than you have to pull in to let you pass?

Sometimes, yes

nc19

Plastik wrote: »

Because they don't have to. Does a car you come across travelling slower than you have to pull in to let you pass?

Sometimes, yes

07Lapierre

Raam wrote: »

Yep, sorry. It has been deleted. You missed it.

I assume it was deleted because it showed a car overtaking two cyclists by crossing the white line?

No Pants

mathepac wrote: »

1. Riding two abreast on a narrow country road with restricted forward visibility and a continuous white centre-line

This bit confuses me. Surely them being two abreast made it easier for you to see them.

John_Rambo

No vid yet, we have to assume Mathepac is spoofing. Scary thing is, looks like he made up a story to paint cyclists in a bad light and managed to make himself out to be a below par motorist with bad road skills and a lack of knowledge of the rules of the road.

Dude, I'm cringing so much my ears are meeting at the back of my head now.

ford2600

John_Rambo wrote: »

No vid yet, we have to assume Mathepac is spoofing. Scary thing is, looks like he made up a story to paint cyclists in a bad light and managed to make himself out to be a below par motorist with bad road skills and a lack of knowledge of the rules of the road.

Dude, I'm cringing so much my ears are meeting at the back of my head now.

Leave poor OP alone or ill get the msdman from Connemara after you!

mathepac

CJC999 wrote: »

OP you clearly are not a cyclist and have no tolerance of them. ...

I have no tolerence of road users whose actions endanger themselves or others.

CJC999 wrote: »

... You were clearly in the wrong. ...

What part of my post shows you I was "clearly in the wrong"? How come it's clear to you I was in the wrong when the two refugees from a decent peleton were clearly blocking traffic?

CJC999 wrote: »

... You exhibited a form of road rage and believe that because you were in a car you have right of way. ...

Where did I describe this road-rage that is so clear to you? Show me exactly so I can correct it. I, like other road-users, have the right to proceed on my way unhindered by self-appointed safety enforcers.

CJC999 wrote: »

... If you came upon a tractor or even another car driving at 15kph would you have demonstrated the same intolerance? ...

I made it clear in my post that overtaking by crossing the solid centre-line was unsafe and also illegal. Which parts of that did you not understand?

CJC999 wrote: »

... Cyclists are legally permitted to cycle two abreast. ....

Like all road users, cyclists are obliged to do what is safe in the prevailing circumastances. A road may have a speed-limit of 80kph. It might be legal to travel at 80kph on it, but it may not always be safe to do so.

CJC999 wrote: »

... I come across idiots like you all the time on country roads.

ThisRegard

Vid not finished the editing process yet?

crosstownk

mathepac wrote: »

My story is my report of what happened

But your video would be conclusive. Why the reluctance to post the video?

Days 298

seamus wrote: »

Haha, not really. First he says:

But later he says:
So basically, "I think it's OK to overtake, but that's just my opinion, I wouldn't risk it in the test because it's technically breaking the law"
His advise in the thread to be fair is spot on though.

"Obstruction" is technical lingo when learning I think. Nearly everything isa hazard or an obstruction when I was learning. ADI's normally give the safest over overcautious advice around! Crossing a white line to keep your distance from a cyclist when safe is hardly the biggest offence going.